Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves a juvenile, adjudicated as a ward under California's Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, challenging the detention terms imposed for probation violations, including truancy. Initially placed on probation with conditions, the minor faced additional detention ('Ricardo M. time') for noncompliance. A supplemental petition contested the procedure for imposing this detention without adhering to section 777 requirements, which mandate a noticed hearing and a prosecuting attorney's petition for commitments exceeding 15 days. The court referenced In re Gerald B., supporting custody imposition for probation breaches like truancy, but distinguished that the current case required compliance with section 777. The court found procedural shortcuts improper, granting a writ of habeas corpus and remanding for further proceedings. The decision underscores the necessity of following statutory protocols for modifying juvenile custody orders, ensuring due process is observed. The ruling was concurred by Kaus, P.J., and Stephens, J., with subsequent rehearing and Supreme Court review requests denied.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Welfare and Institutions Code Section 777subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that procedural requirements under section 777 must be adhered to before imposing stayed custody time, emphasizing the need for a noticed hearing and a supplemental petition filed by the prosecuting attorney.
Reasoning: Section 777 mandates that any order to remove a minor from a parent's custody and commit them to a county institution must follow a noticed hearing based on a supplemental petition filed by the prosecuting attorney at the probation officer's request.
Detention for Truancy under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 602subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court examined whether a ward under section 602 can be detained solely for truancy, affirming that the imposition of custody time for probation violations, including truancy, is permissible.
Reasoning: The petition raised two key issues: (1) whether a section 602 ward can be detained in juvenile hall solely for truancy...
Limitations on Stayed Juvenile Detention Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that stayed custody cannot be imposed without following section 777 procedures, as the requirement for the prosecuting attorney to file the supplemental petition was not met.
Reasoning: Therefore, the court ruled that if a court stays the minor's time, it cannot later impose it without complying with section 777’s requirements.